Saunders against Newman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1818 |
| Date | 24 January 1818 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 95
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Frechette v. La Compagnie de St. Hyacinthe, 1883, 9 App. Cas. 185.
258] saundeks against newman. Saturday, Jan. 24th, 1818. The occupier of a mill may maintain an action for forcing back water and injuring his mill, although he has not enjoyed it precisely in the same state for 20 years; and (c) 12 East, 232. (d) 33 H. 6, 24. 34 H. 6, 24 a. (a) 1 Wins. Saund. 336 b. 96 SAUNDEBS V. NEWMAN 1 B. & AID. 259. therefore it was holden to be no defence to such an action that the occupier had, within a few years, erected in his mill a wheel of different dimensions, but requiring less water than the old one, although the declaration stated the plaintiff to be possessed of a mill, without alleging it to be an ancient mill. [Referred to, Frechette v. La Compagnie de St. Hyacinthe, 1883, 9 App. Cas. 185.] The declaration stated, that plaintiff was possessed of a water-mill, with the appurtenances, &c., in which mill he had used, exercised, and carried on, and still of right ought to use, exercise, and carry on the trade and business of a miller ; and that the defendant was possessed of another mill and mill-pond, and that the water of a certain stream from time immemorial had flowed, and still of right ought to flow in its usual channel unto the mill of the plaintiff, and from thence unto the mill and mill-pond of defendant, and from the mill and mill-pond of defendant in its usual channel, without being penned or forced back so as to occasion any injury to the plaintiff's mill; yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, wrongfully kept and continued a hatch-dam or mill-head of and belonging to his mill-pond, raised to a much greater height than the same had theretofore been, whereby large quantities of water of the stream which ought to have flowed and escaped from and out of the defendant's mill and mill-pond in its usual channel below the same mill, and away from the mill of plaintiff, was greatly prevented from flowing and escaping from the mill and mill-pond of defendant, as the same otherwise would have done, and by reason of such obstruction quantities of the water and stream were penned and forced back against the wheel of the plaintiff's mill, whereby plaintiff was prevented from working his mill, to his damage, &c. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Mr. J. Burrough at the last assizes for the county of Wilts, it [259] appeared in evidence that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...the mill to be an ancient one, it was held to be no defence that the plaintiff had within twenty years somewhat altered the wheels. 1 B. & A. 258, Saundersv. Newman. [4 Bing. N. C. 381, Hall v. Swift. 6 Scott, 167, S. C. A mistaken notion appears to have prevailed for some time, that the ri......
-
Ingham v MacKey
...(2) 1 H. & N. 916. (3) 2 B. & Cr. 686. (4) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 133. (5) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 283. (6) 4 Q. B. Div. 162. (7) 7 East, 195. (8) 1 B. & Ald. 258. (9) 4 MacQ. (10) [1896] 1 Ch. 214. (11) 5 E. & Bl. 166. (12) 15 Q. B. Div. 629. (13) 19 Ch. D. 22. (1) 6 M. & W. 174. (2) 30 L. R. IR. 424.......
-
Mason against Hill and Others
...to turn the stream as he saw cause, for otherwise he cannot justify it, though the mill be newly erected." And in Saunders v. Newman (1 B. & A. 258), it was finally decided that it was not necessary to state the mill to be ancient; and Holroyd J. there recognised the law laid down by Le Bla......